The relationship between round window and ear canal Cochlear microphonic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hypothesis Cochlear microphonic recorded at ear canal (CM‐EC) can be a substitute for the one recorded at round window (CM‐RW). Background Almost all clinics do not measure tone‐burst evoked CM due to technical difficulty although it can provide more information than click evoked CM. Moreover, clinicians like the CM‐EC more than that measured at CM‐RW because CM‐EC is non‐invasive. There is difference between CM‐RW and CM‐EC, for example, CM‐EC is less prominent than CM‐RW, therefore, studying tone‐burst evoked CM‐EC and its relationship with CM‐RW are highly significant and can promote the clinical application of CM‐EC. Method Nine guinea pigs were randomly allocated into three groups, group 1 was not exposed to noise, called normal control. group 2 and group 3 were exposed to the low‐ (0.5–2 kHz) and high‐frequency band‐noise (6–8 kHz) at 120 dB SPL for 1 h, respectively. It was difficulty to record low‐frequency CM due to severe environmental interruption, in current study the recording technology of tone‐burst evoked CM was optimized so that tone‐burst evoked CM was measured across full speech frequency (0.5–8 kHz) in the presence of normal hearing and noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Results CM‐RW and CM‐EC were successfully recorded across speech frequency. Significant reduction in CM amplitude was observed at 0.5 and 2 kHz in group 2, at 6 and 8 kHz in group 3 as compared to group 1, p < .05 , indicating that CM amplitude was sensitive to band‐noise exposure. Significant correlation between CM‐RW and CM‐EC was also verified, p < .05 . Conclusion CM‐EC is a useful objective test for evaluation of hearing function; the result of current study supports the clinical application of non‐invasive CM‐EC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".